Austrian Axioms

What are the Austrian Axioms?  From my understanding, one axiom is that humans act, per Mises.  Are there others?

How about "Humans act, their decisions are based on subjective values, and uncertainty exists."

Anything more than that is just showing off.

He who has the Gold rules.

Until another commodity becomes money.

Anonymous Coward:

How about "Humans act, their decisions are based on subjective values, and uncertainty exists."

Is the second really necessary as an axiom?  And the third, for that matter?  Aren't they all contained in the notion of action?

I'd add the standard logical axioms.

JAlanKatz:

Is the second really necessary as an axiom?  And the third, for that matter?  Aren't they all contained in the notion of action?

Who knows...

I just found that on a google search because I thought it was a good question and didn't know the answer.

'Humans act' just doesn't have enough bling.

Would humans act or even need to act if all outcomes were certain? Would an non-subjective value system change this basic desire to act?

I think that covers the basics of the human condition though.

According to Rothbard, there is the action axiom and then 4 subsidiary postulates of decreasing importance:

1. There exists a variety of resources

2. Leisure is a consumer's good

3. Limiting conditions apply to what is being studied

4. Firms always act to maximize their monetary profit

Hope this helps!

 Despite having read MES, I still have trouble with exactly what Rothbard is using "postulate" to mean.  4 certainly is not just doubtable, but false in many real cases.  3 seems more like an epistemological statement than a postulate.  2 I'll accept, and 1 certainly is not logically true, even though true.  Is he saying in the absence of 1 we couldn't do economics?

He says that the postulates are just empirical statements, although I think there are still a priori the sense that they don't need to be constantly proven.  As for #1, I think he is just saying that it is a fact of the world that we live in.  And he says that #4 is often false, but that it is useful in elaborating the theory of the firm.

 I guess it's getting to be time to reread.

Anonymous Coward:

How about "Humans act, their decisions are based on subjective values, and uncertainty exists."

Anything more than that is just showing off.

The reason I ask about the various (if any) Austrian Axiom, is that in Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Hoppe suggested a second Axiom:

The second axiom is the so-called "a priori of argumentation," which states that humans are capable of argumentation and hence know the meaning of truth and validity. [54] As in the case of the action axiom, this knowledge is not derived from observation: there is only verbal behavior to be observed and prior reflective cognition is required in order to interpret such behavior as meaningful arguments. And the
validity of the axiom, like that of the action axiom, is indisputable.

To me, this may be more of a postulate or corallary rather than an Axiom.  Do most Austrian accept this as an Axiom?  Anyone know of any other Austrian postulates, corallaries, or even other Axioms, other than Mises' Axiom, Hoppe's Axiom, and Rothbard's Postulates?

Hoppe is a Kantian. Rothbard an Aristotelian. They are using the terms in a different fashion. For Hoppe, argumentation is axiomatic because it cannot be denied without self-contradiction.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

Hoppe is a Kantian. Rothbard an Aristotelian.

I read a piece by David Gordon stating that Mises was an Aristotelian but used Kantian terminology.  I think I might start a new thread on the Kantian and Aristotelian approaches...

Yes, and Long also argued that IIRC. Hoppe, OTOH, is a Kantian through and through, of the realist sort. It's important to note this when comparing Mises and Hoppe on the one hand and Rothbard on the other.

-Jon

JAlanKatz:

Is the second really necessary as an axiom?  And the third, for that matter?  Aren't they all contained in the notion of action?

I'd add the standard logical axioms.

IIRC:

Mises has said action implies uncertainty (the uncertainty of the actor with respect to the future), and also value (the circumstances the actor values enough to attempt to attain), but not specifically subjective value, I don't think. As far as I know, the ascent toward the subjectivity of value in particular reflects the historic unfruitfulness of the search for an economic "util." Maybe someone here can go further and construct an argument as to why we must logically deny the "util's" potential existence outright.

The only starting points I've used myself in AE have been "humans act" and "humans prefer the same satisfaction sooner rather than later" (i.e., Time Preference), which I've heard some have disputed in part, including Robert Murphy.

wombatron:

According to Rothbard, there is the action axiom and then 4 subsidiary postulates of decreasing importance:

1. There exists a variety of resources

2. Leisure is a consumer's good

3. Limiting conditions apply to what is being studied

4. Firms always act to maximize their monetary profit

Hope this helps!

It would seem that postulate 4 isn't really true. Firms are made up of individuals and because the individuals that make up a firm do not all try to maximize monetary profit for the firm than it cannot be said that the firm always acts to maximize its monetary profit. Individuals that make up a firm often have conflicting goals. Am I missing something?

I would add that "All human action is performed with the intention of improving a person's percieved circumstances." That's a good shortcut to help people understand the purpose of the action axiom.

Solid_Choke:

wombatron:

According to Rothbard, there is the action axiom and then 4 subsidiary postulates of decreasing importance:

1. There exists a variety of resources

2. Leisure is a consumer's good

3. Limiting conditions apply to what is being studied

4. Firms always act to maximize their monetary profit

Hope this helps!

It would seem that postulate 4 isn't really true. Firms are made up of individuals and because the individuals that make up a firm do not all try to maximize monetary profit for the firm than it cannot be said that the firm always acts to maximize its monetary profit. Individuals that make up a firm often have conflicting goals. Am I missing something?

 

No, Rothbard also said that it was often false, and was the least important of the postulates, but that it was useful in elaborating the theory of the firm.